Dan Hodges is a former Labour Party and GMB trade union official, and has managed numerous independent political campaigns. He writes about Labour with tribal loyalty and without reservation. You can read Dan's recent work here

Grangemouth closure: Len McCluskey seems the obvious villain. But take a closer look…

This morning the Grangemouth chemical plant stands on the brink of closure, and it seems pretty clear who is to blame. Len McCluskey and his Unite trade union are up to the their tricks again.

"As a result of Unite’s enthusiasm for conflict with management, rather than for sensible engagement with both that management and the global economic realities underlying its proposal, what is currently the largest industrial complex in Scotland may soon cease to exist", says today’s Times leader. The local MP, Eric Joyce, directly blames McCluskey’s aggressive political strategy: "Unite’s overriding problem is that its leadership has chosen to put politics, pseudo-ideology and career self-interest above the interests of Unite members. Unite has completely lost it focus; it’s raison d’être even … the shutdown at Grangemouth, and the risk to the future of Scotland’s largest industrial site, is the consequence."

The union itself has responded with characteristic moderation to news of the plant’s imminent closure: "Ineos is waging a campaign of fear against its employees," said a Unite statement. "It is attacking the workers’ union, Unite, and their representatives. This climate of fear has been created to try to force working men and women into signing away their rights and the pensions for which they have saved all their working lives. This is a company that is out of control. This is holding Scotland to ransom."

And so the Grangemouth narrative is set. A militant union and its bombastic general secretary are getting their just desserts. Len McCluskey has pushed his luck too far, and the brave employer, Ineos, has finally called his bluff.

Trust me, it’s a narrative I find appealing. Len McCluskey is indeed the bombastic leader of a very militant union. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that McLuskey and Unite are to blame for what’s going on in Grangemouth.

Eric Joyce is right to point out that the origins of the dispute lie in the political shenanigans over the Falkirk selection. Stevie Deans, the senior Unite convener at the plant, has been placed "under investigation" by Ineos over "issues linked to the Falkirk row". In response, the workforce promptly downed tools in support of their colleague.

Now, we know Deans was running around signing up large numbers of workers to the Labour Party in order to try to force through the selection of Unite’s favoured candidate for the seat, Karrie Murphy. But what’s not clear is what any of that actually has to do with the company. I called them to ask, but they’re not responding.

What is clear is that the company has described the strike – coming in the midst of sensitive negotiations over the future of the plant – as "fiddling while Rome burns". "While this crucial issue is facing us, which will close the site before 2017 unless something is done, Unite are ignoring it and focusing on this issue about Steven Deans", said Tom Crotty the group’s director.

But you can invert the charge. If these negotiations with the union are so sensitive, why has the company chosen precisely this moment to launch an investigation into the senior Unite representative on the site? And over a matter that, on the surface, is an issue for the Labour Party, not Ineos? Unite may well be guilty of fiddling while Rome burns. But it seems to have been Ineos who were running around that ancient city with a can of petrol and box of matches.

Which brings us on to the details of the negotiations themselves. Unite have accused Ineos of blackmail. In response Ineos have said they will have no choice but to close the plant unless the workers agree to the following concessions: cuts to bonuses, changed terms of working, a cut in pension benefits, and a no-strike pledge. In return they’ll get a £15,000 one-off sweetener, and their jobs.

Or, in other words, Ineos is saying, “Do what we say, or we’ll close the plant and sack the lot of you”. In my book, that’s the very definition of blackmail.

Ineos may well be right. The prevailing economics of the chemicals industry may well mean economies have to be found if Grangemouth is to continue operating. But that requires mature negotiation. And at the moment Ineos aren’t negotiating, they’re threatening.

This is not a dispute about politics or ideology. It is about the industrial basics: terms of employment, pay, pensions. And trade union members pay their subs to see their union protect these things, not meekly sign them away. Grangemouth is precisely the sort of issue that union leaders are supposed to get militant about.

Eric Joyce is right. Since Len McCluskey was elected the Unite union – some could argue the entire union movement – have lost their focus; their raison d’être. But in Grangemouth, and in the face of Ineos's naked bullying, they may well have found it again.